04-14-2010, 02:15 PM
[quote TubeDude][
[#0000ff]What do you think of that?[/#0000ff][/quote]
I think some of you guys need to email Wayne and get a third grade lesson in carrying capacity. Sure, the lake has seen a change since the accidental introduction of gizzard shad...but that won't change the carrying capacity of the reservoir.
And, FWIW, I fish lake powell every year...you have to remember, my father was the one who first introduced stripers to the reservoir.
Cliff, if you don't think that the rising lake powell has changed from a habitat standpoint the past few years, you need to open your eyes. All that flooded brush has created an excellent nursery for small bass, bluegill, crappie, shad, and even walleye and pike. The same thing is happening at Powell right now that happened in Yuba a couple years ago...it is in a boom cycle right now. But, as it always has, it will soon bust, the stripers will begin starving and get really skinny, and the population will crash.
Evidence to support my claims? How about we use Wayne's Words: "On January 1, 2002 a new regulation was enacted on Lake Powell that allowed anglers to keep 20 smallmouth bass. The number was not important. It could have been 10 or 30. The philosophical statement was the clincher. I wanted anglers to know that it was okay to keep a bass. Catch and release was not working at Lake Powell. Catch and keep would help improve the fishery. Anglers responded to the new keeper philosophy by doubling the bass harvest. In 2002 and 2003 about 25% of bass caught were kept.
Fast forward to 2004. After only two years of "keeping bass" the fishery has responded in dramatic fashion. Shad forage is more abundant. Smallmouth bass are bigger and fatter. Bass tournaments held in 2002 saw winning average weights of less than 5 pounds for five 12-inch smallmouth bass. The first two tournaments held in 2004 had winning weights of over 9 pounds for five fish with a "big fish" over 3 pounds. The ratio of bass over 13 inches in the population (RSD) has improved from zero in 2000 to 20% in 2003. The outlook for 2004 is for continued bass growth and better quality fishing.
How does this work? Smallmouth targeted by our catch and keep program, those 9-11 inch bass, are the most aggressive predators. Young bass are naïve, fearless and always hungry. By keeping the smaller, most aggressive bass, more food was made available for the older, wiser fish that were more selective in feeding habits. Keeping the larger bass would have had the opposite effect of leaving the most efficient predators and not freeing up enough additional forage. Anglers were given information about the goal of the bass harvest program and the target size fish to harvest. They responded with enthusiasm. This was a victory for angler education in action." So, to increase the size of bass, more bass had to be kept. Why? To free up biomass...instead of the biomass being comprised of small fish, more room in the bucket was made for bigger fish.
This is just in response to smallmouth bass....what about stripers? Again, Wayne's Words: "In 2007, we find gizzard shad have occupied all of Lake Powell. It really only took 3 years for the migration of shad to reach from the upper San Juan to the dam all the way to the headwaters of the Colorado River. In netting samples during November 2006, gizzard shad accounted for almost as much fish flesh as striped bass. The largest shad caught to date came from Wahweap bay. The huge shad was 19.25 inches long and weighed 2.8 pounds. Gizzard shad grew to larger size than normal in the fertile waters found during 20003-2006.
While threadfin numbers crashed in 2006 in response to heavy predation from massive numbers of adult game fish, gizzard shad adults continued to become more numerous. There are no natural predators for big gizzard shad. They just get big and eat algae and detritus off the bottom. Large numbers of adults are needed to provide the new crop of shad each spring that all game fish depend on for growth and survival. With threadfin presently low in numbers, the progeny of gizzard shad will provide needed food fish during the critical spring months. There may not be enough shad to go around in 2007 but the presence of gizzard shad will provide at least some food to keep the fisheries on track for the near term. "
Interestingly, the last striper crash--2006--corresponded with the last crash of threadfin shad...now as shad numbers--both threadfin and gizzard shad--increase, the health of predators (bass, walleye, pike, and stripers) has also increased. In other words, once the striper population crashed, the bucket was left with a void that the shad were able to occupy. Wow, what a concept! The old carrying capacity/bucket analogy lesson in perfect action! Of course, though, we shouldn't believe any of that....Cliff knows better!
[signature]
[#0000ff]What do you think of that?[/#0000ff][/quote]
I think some of you guys need to email Wayne and get a third grade lesson in carrying capacity. Sure, the lake has seen a change since the accidental introduction of gizzard shad...but that won't change the carrying capacity of the reservoir.
And, FWIW, I fish lake powell every year...you have to remember, my father was the one who first introduced stripers to the reservoir.
Cliff, if you don't think that the rising lake powell has changed from a habitat standpoint the past few years, you need to open your eyes. All that flooded brush has created an excellent nursery for small bass, bluegill, crappie, shad, and even walleye and pike. The same thing is happening at Powell right now that happened in Yuba a couple years ago...it is in a boom cycle right now. But, as it always has, it will soon bust, the stripers will begin starving and get really skinny, and the population will crash.
Evidence to support my claims? How about we use Wayne's Words: "On January 1, 2002 a new regulation was enacted on Lake Powell that allowed anglers to keep 20 smallmouth bass. The number was not important. It could have been 10 or 30. The philosophical statement was the clincher. I wanted anglers to know that it was okay to keep a bass. Catch and release was not working at Lake Powell. Catch and keep would help improve the fishery. Anglers responded to the new keeper philosophy by doubling the bass harvest. In 2002 and 2003 about 25% of bass caught were kept.
Fast forward to 2004. After only two years of "keeping bass" the fishery has responded in dramatic fashion. Shad forage is more abundant. Smallmouth bass are bigger and fatter. Bass tournaments held in 2002 saw winning average weights of less than 5 pounds for five 12-inch smallmouth bass. The first two tournaments held in 2004 had winning weights of over 9 pounds for five fish with a "big fish" over 3 pounds. The ratio of bass over 13 inches in the population (RSD) has improved from zero in 2000 to 20% in 2003. The outlook for 2004 is for continued bass growth and better quality fishing.
How does this work? Smallmouth targeted by our catch and keep program, those 9-11 inch bass, are the most aggressive predators. Young bass are naïve, fearless and always hungry. By keeping the smaller, most aggressive bass, more food was made available for the older, wiser fish that were more selective in feeding habits. Keeping the larger bass would have had the opposite effect of leaving the most efficient predators and not freeing up enough additional forage. Anglers were given information about the goal of the bass harvest program and the target size fish to harvest. They responded with enthusiasm. This was a victory for angler education in action." So, to increase the size of bass, more bass had to be kept. Why? To free up biomass...instead of the biomass being comprised of small fish, more room in the bucket was made for bigger fish.
This is just in response to smallmouth bass....what about stripers? Again, Wayne's Words: "In 2007, we find gizzard shad have occupied all of Lake Powell. It really only took 3 years for the migration of shad to reach from the upper San Juan to the dam all the way to the headwaters of the Colorado River. In netting samples during November 2006, gizzard shad accounted for almost as much fish flesh as striped bass. The largest shad caught to date came from Wahweap bay. The huge shad was 19.25 inches long and weighed 2.8 pounds. Gizzard shad grew to larger size than normal in the fertile waters found during 20003-2006.
While threadfin numbers crashed in 2006 in response to heavy predation from massive numbers of adult game fish, gizzard shad adults continued to become more numerous. There are no natural predators for big gizzard shad. They just get big and eat algae and detritus off the bottom. Large numbers of adults are needed to provide the new crop of shad each spring that all game fish depend on for growth and survival. With threadfin presently low in numbers, the progeny of gizzard shad will provide needed food fish during the critical spring months. There may not be enough shad to go around in 2007 but the presence of gizzard shad will provide at least some food to keep the fisheries on track for the near term. "
Interestingly, the last striper crash--2006--corresponded with the last crash of threadfin shad...now as shad numbers--both threadfin and gizzard shad--increase, the health of predators (bass, walleye, pike, and stripers) has also increased. In other words, once the striper population crashed, the bucket was left with a void that the shad were able to occupy. Wow, what a concept! The old carrying capacity/bucket analogy lesson in perfect action! Of course, though, we shouldn't believe any of that....Cliff knows better!
[signature]